Pastor Chuck Baldwin -“We Are Not Anarchists”

[donnay]

Pastor Chuck Baldwin -“We Are Not Anarchists”

Kalispell, MT-(NorthWest Liberty News) Pastor Chuck Baldwin is a controversial figure. He has been demonized by the left for many years, and has been used as cannon fodder by the SPLC for nearly as long. Opinions about Pastor Baldwin vary widely. Some think he’s a heroic “Black Robe “preacher, while others think that he’s an anti-government “whacko.” And through it all, Chuck Baldwin just keeps on preaching truth. In the clip below, which will NEVER be referenced by the likes of the SPLC, Pastor Baldwin covers the role of government, the meaning of liberty, and what the Bible says about anarchy. If you have never heard Chuck Baldwin speak, the short clip below offers you an excellent chance to do so. Learn more about Chuck Baldwin by visiting the Liberty Fellowship website (http://libertyfellowshipmt.com/).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6JfFA4hPfE&feature=player_embedded#t=71

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple (http://www.thedailysheeple.com/pastor-chuck-baldwin-we-are-not-anarchists_082013)

[Feeding the Abscess]

How ironic, he's berating others and calling them 4 years old, while the whole tirade against anarchy was a strawman and intellectually at a 4 year old level.

[Sola_Fide]

The Constitution Party has always been strongly against anarchism.

[Christian Liberty]

The Constitution Party has always been strongly against anarchism.

That seems pretty obvious.

I'm not an anarchist, but I consider ancaps to be my allies.

[fr33]

The we is not me.

[Christian Liberty]

Basically all he did in that particular sermon was to bash anarchists and people who apparently utilize civil disobedience too often. And he took a ton of Scriptures out of context. Christian liberty has nothing to do with government at all.

Then again, IIRC he's an Arminian so I'm not surprised.

[BuddyRey]

Speak for yourself, Chuck

[ClydeCoulter]

I was beside myself, listening to him.
You can't let the salesman get the foot into the door (for the start of this speech).
Yet, I found myself sympathizing with my old self as he spoke more. But, then after a while, I remembered what I had learned.
The place for government is self government. If you cannot govern yourself then there is no recourse but to subject to yourself to those who do not have your best interest at heart.

[Sola_Fide]

What Paul is talking about is liberty from the law that brings death. "Liberty", in the context of what Paul is talking about, is about the issue of salvation, not government. Chuck Baldwin is not interpreting Scripture correctly.

[DamianTV]

The Anti Federalists were not Anarchists either.

But today the Anti Federalists are also labeled Terrorists, as well as Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Four Year Olds with their own Gardens (see thread in Health Freedom).

[A Son of Liberty]

Sigh...

http://i.qkme.me/3sq9x3.jpg

[Brett85]

Basically all he did in that particular sermon was to bash anarchists and people who apparently utilize civil disobedience too often. And he took a ton of Scriptures out of context. Christian liberty has nothing to do with government at all.

Then again, IIRC he's an Arminian so I'm not surprised.

I listened to most of his sermon, and most of what he said was completely accurate. Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God instituted government among men.

[Matthew5]

What Paul is talking about is liberty from the law that brings death. "Liberty", in the context of what Paul is talking about, is about the issue of salvation, not government. Chuck Baldwin is not interpreting Scripture correctly.

Hmmm, if only we had an Apostolic tradition to accurately interpret Scripture... ;)

You're correct though, he's taking the word "liberty" in the political sense, a concept foreign to St. Paul.

[Matthew5]

Wow, that went off the rails quickly. Not only was St. Paul Epistles seriously misapplied, but it changed into this weird straw man argument on anarchism. That whole thing was a mess.

I wasn't aware that Voluntarists are running around using "liberty" to harm others...seems counterproductive.

[roho76]

I listened to most of his sermon, and most of what he said was completely accurate. Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God instituted government among men.

How convenient for government that the concept of government was a divine invention foisted upon us by GOD. This is why I agree with Thomas Paine when he says "All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Religion was the first government created to enslave other humans based on the opinions of a handful of sociopaths.

[roho76]

Also, didn't "GOD" give us free will? That's seems deeply incompatible with government.

Also, if "GOD" is all seeing and all knowing, wouldn't he have know that the government that he give us, would eventually lead to what we have now? Did he want the people of the Middle East to die at the hands of government? Does he want the people of Africa to die of starvation because of government corruption and tyranny? Seems to me that "government" was not one of "GOD's" best creations.

[Snew]

Speak for yourself, Chuck
this

[pcosmar]

Religion was the first government created to enslave other humans based on the opinions of a handful of sociopaths.

No it wasn't. At least not from God. Governments came from Man.

He gave warnings against having a king,, but allowed it when the people begged for one.

I am not an Anarchist.. I get accused of being one,, often,, for my views on limited government,, and opposition to the concept of police.
I am not.. I do not even believe that Anarchy can exist more than momentarily outside of philosophical imaginations.

Less law =/= no law. Natural Law still exists, Spiritual Law still exists.

[familydog]

Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches.

This is absolutely correct. The former is morally and logically consistent. The latter is irrational and insane.

Chucky Baldwin needs to address his own inconsistencies before he even attempts to criticize others.

[July]

Well, is a 'state' really synonymous with 'government' though? I used to think so, but after reading Nock, I'm starting to see these are actually opposites from a classical liberal point of view....if a 'state' is itself a criminal entity, that can only sustain and perpetuate itself through means that would be considered unlawful for any ordinary private citizen to do...then isn't removal of the state actually an act of restoring law and order to society? If the law doesn't apply to the state (above the law), then we are already in a state of lawlessness....and therefore getting rid of that situation restores the rule of law.

Ok so go back to the classical liberal definition of what a government is supposed to be. Governments deriving just powers from the consent of governed, etc, etc....isn't that something very different from a state? States don't involve "consent" or they wouldn't be a state. Governments do.

[roho76]

No it wasn't. At least not from God. Governments came from Man.

He gave warnings against having a king,, but allowed it when the people begged for one.

I am not an Anarchist.. I get accused of being one,, often,, for my views on limited government,, and opposition to the concept of police.
I am not.. I do not even believe that Anarchy can exist more than momentarily outside of philosophical imaginations.

Less law =/= no law. Natural Law still exists, Spiritual Law still exists.

That's what I meant. Government was created by man in the form of religion to terrify and enslave their fellow man. Nothing but a bunch of arbitrary rules created by some other guy and then forced onto others with the threat of violence for non compliance. The bible is riddled with atrocities against our fellow man for non compliance to the Christian doctrine. Look at what people do to each other these days in the name of Jesus/GOD. It's a fucking joke. Modern day Christianity has been so perverted that its become evil. Most Christians would drone Jesus today for saying some of the shit he said back then. He'd be labeled a terrorist/extremist and persecuted (again).

[shane77m]

That's what I meant. Government was created by man in the form of religion to terrify and enslave their fellow man. Nothing but a bunch of arbitrary rules created by some other guy and then forced onto others with the threat of violence for non compliance. The bible is riddled with atrocities against our fellow man for non compliance to the Christian doctrine. Look at what people do to each other these days in the name of Jesus/GOD. It's a fucking joke. Modern day Christianity has been so perverted that its become evil. Most Christians would drone Jesus today for saying some of the shit he said back then. He'd be labeled a terrorist/extremist and persecuted (again).

Just because a person and or group of people claim to be Christian does not make them a Christian.

[Sola_Fide]

I listened to most of his sermon, and most of what he said was completely accurate. Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God instituted government among men.

I vehemently disagree. God instituted the family, not the state.

[Matthew5]

...Seems to me that "government" was not one of "GOD's" best creations.

It wasn't a divine creation. The Israelites looked to their secular and pagan contemporaries and demanded a king like them. God warned them what that would entail and they demanded it anyway.

[Christian Liberty]

I listened to most of his sermon, and most of what he said was completely accurate. Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God instituted government among men.

I'm beginning to think that Chuck is more qualified for politics than he is for being a preacher. Maybe you listened to more of the sermon than I did, but I don't think he interpreted a single scripture in a correct manner in that clip.

How are we defining "Anarchy"? How is Chuck defining it?

If by "anarchy" he means the common definition that laypeople use, namely, that there aren't any laws, no regulatiions on behavior, you can get away with murder,exc. than I would agree that that's completely unbiblical.

If you mean "anarchy" in the sense that most people here use it, free market anarchism, I think there's possibly some Biblical support for that. For instance, God never intended for Israel to have a King, and there's also "Thou shall not steal", which seems like it should apply to governments as well.

(Disclaimer: I'm not actually an anarchist)


What Paul is talking about is liberty from the law that brings death. "Liberty", in the context of what Paul is talking about, is about the issue of salvation, not government. Chuck Baldwin is not interpreting Scripture correctly.

Exactly.

[Christian Liberty]

I vehemently disagree. God instituted the family, not the state.

I know its hard to prove a negative, but can you show us where people like TC or Baldwin would say God instituted government, and show why they're wrong?

I'm actually curious now...

[pcosmar]

That's what I meant. Government was created by man in the form of religion to terrify and enslave their fellow man. Nothing but a bunch of arbitrary rules created by some other guy and then forced onto others with the threat of violence for non compliance.

Men have ruled others,, and used various religions to do so,, but that was not of God.
The ancient Israelites begged for a King,, against Gods wishes. To be like all the pagans around them.
They were warned against this. But they insisted,, so God allowed it,, but warned them of the evils of doing so.



The bible is riddled with atrocities against our fellow man for non compliance to the Christian doctrine.

No it is not,, nowhere in it. I suspect you have never read it.
But please feel free to quote the passage where Christians are Aggressive to others.

Actually,, History (not the bible) is riddled with Mans atrocities and using religion in an attempt to justify it.
There has never been anything Christian about it.

[Sola_Fide]

I know its hard to prove a negative, but can you show us where people like TC or Baldwin would say God instituted government, and show why they're wrong?

I'm actually curious now...

Go to the Romans 13 threads and read Erowe's posts about it.

[kahless]

I have casually read some things about Baldwin and assumed he was a bright guy. However he proved is ignorance on the subject of anarchism in this video by grouping all anarchists into a single school of thought. He also came off like a condescending and arrogant in this speech.

How could he totally miss that many anarchists believe in the non-aggression principle and Christian Anarchism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism

[Christian Liberty]

Go to the Romans 13 threads and read Erowe's posts about it.

I'll take a look at it.

[kahless]

I'm beginning to think that Chuck is more qualified for politics than he is for being a preacher. Maybe you listened to more of the sermon than I did, but I don't think he interpreted a single scripture in a correct manner in that clip.

How are we defining "Anarchy"? How is Chuck defining it?

If by "anarchy" he means the common definition that laypeople use, namely, that there aren't any laws, no regulatiions on behavior, you can get away with murder,exc. than I would agree that that's completely unbiblical.

If you mean "anarchy" in the sense that most people here use it, free market anarchism, I think there's possibly some Biblical support for that. For instance, God never intended for Israel to have a King, and there's also "Thou shall not steal", which seems like it should apply to governments as well.
....

Did not see your last post before making mine, my sentiments exactly. I am surprised by his ignorance.

[steph3n]

I am an anarchist because I understand what anarchy is, while the average person thinks it is the idiots rioting at G8 meetings...WRONG.

[Sola_Fide]

Also, didn't "GOD" give us free will?

No.




That's seems deeply incompatible with government.

The idea of free will is the FOUNDATION for government intervention. If men's wills are free and able to be changed by something in this world, that leaves the door open for an earthly institution to control it. The doctrine of predestination, which says that no institution on this earth can change a man's will, only God can, is the FOUNDATION for a philosophy against interventionism.




Also, if "GOD" is all seeing and all knowing, wouldn't he have know that the government that he give us, would eventually lead to what we have now? Did he want the people of the Middle East to die at the hands of government? Does he want the people of Africa to die of starvation because of government corruption and tyranny? Seems to me that "government" was not one of "GOD's" best creations.

Governmental slavery is a judgement on men for their sin.

[Sola_Fide]

Also, didn't "GOD" give us free will?

No.




That's seems deeply incompatible with government.

The idea of free will is the FOUNDATION for government intervention. If men's wills are free and able to be changed by something in this world, that leaves the door open for an earthly institution to control it. The doctrine of predestination, which says that no institution on this earth can change a man's will, only God can, is the FOUNDATION for a philosophy against interventionism.




Also, if "GOD" is all seeing and all knowing, wouldn't he have know that the government that he give us, would eventually lead to what we have now? Did he want the people of the Middle East to die at the hands of government? Does he want the people of Africa to die of starvation because of government corruption and tyranny? Seems to me that "government" was not one of "GOD's" best creations.

Governmental slavery is a judgement on men for their sin.

[Christian Liberty]

Did not see your last post before making mine, my sentiments exactly. I am surprised by his ignorance.

And for the record, I'm not even an anarchist. I just don't think this is nearly as clear as he thinks it is.

I also think its kind of funny that he was trying to kick the anarchists out of his fellowship. I seriously hope if he's doing that that he's already gotten all of the "Fighting four our freedoms" and "Support the troops" flag waving idiots out.

No.





The idea of free will is the FOUNDATION for government intervention. If men's wills are free and able to be changed by something in this world, that leaves the door open for an earthly institution to control it. The doctrine of predestination, which says that no institution on this earth can change a man's will, only God can, is the FOUNDATION for a philosophy against interventionism.



I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Aren't we as libertarians trying to change people's minds? Are you saying we shouldn't do that just because the results are predestined already?

I honestly do not follow your logic here.

[erowe1]

I'm trying to think of anything in the Bible that speaks against anarchy, and I can't think of anything. I can't even think of any passages that could do that even if they were interpreted differently than I interpret them.

Does Baldwin actually come up with any passages that even sound like they might be condemning anarchy?

I guess one caveat I would make to this is that you can't avoid seeing that in the Bible the kingship of God and Jesus is always a positive thing. So that contradicts true absolute anarchy (no king). But that rule of God doesn't depend on the existence of earthly kings. And I'm assuming that the absence of earthly kings is what Baldwin means by anarchy.

[Sola_Fide]

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. Aren't we as libertarians trying to change people's minds? Are you saying we shouldn't do that just because the results are predestined already?

I honestly do not follow your logic here.



Are you aware of the Reformation and the ideas that came out of the Reformation? One of those ideas was the idea of freedom of conscience.

The idea that only God can change the will (predestination) was the basis upon which the Reformers argued against the tyranny of Rome. They argued that the idea that something other than God alone could change the will (free will) was the open door for coercion in spiritual and political matters.

This is one of the most important concepts that a Reformed person can understand when he is trying to develop a political philosophy.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm trying to think of anything in the Bible that speaks against anarchy, and I can't think of anything. I can't even think of any passages that could do that even if they were interpreted differently than I interpret them.

Does Baldwin actually come up with any passages that even sound like they might be condemning anarchy?

I guess one caveat I would make to this is that you can't avoid seeing that in the Bible the kingship of God and Jesus is always a positive thing. So that contradicts true absolute anarchy (no king). But that rule of God doesn't depend on the existence of earthly kings. And I'm assuming that the absence of earthly kings is what Baldwin means by anarchy.

Well, there's this:


Submission to the Authorities13 Let every person p (http://www.esvbible.org/Tt3.1%3B1P2.13/)be subject to the governing authorities. Forq (http://www.esvbible.org/Jn19.11%3BDn2.21/)there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you r (http://www.esvbible.org/1P2.14/)will receive his approval, 4 for s (http://www.esvbible.org/2Ch19.6/)he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, t (http://www.esvbible.org/1Th4.6/)an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also u (http://www.esvbible.org/1P2.19%3BEc8.2/)for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 v (http://www.esvbible.org/Mt17.25%3BMt22.21%3BMk12.17/)Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.


I admit I don't know how to interpret the passage in question. Verse 3 just seems to be obviously false, rulers often reward evil and punish good. So I'm honestly not sure what Paul is trying to say there. Not knowing Greek doesn't exactly help me here either.

There's also that "Honor the Emperor" line in 1 Peter (Or is it 2 Peter? Can't remember for sure.)

Are you aware of the Reformation and the ideas that came out of the Reformation? One of those ideas was the idea of freedom of conscience.

The idea that only God can change the will (predestination) was the basis upon which the Reformers argued against the tyranny of Rome. They argued that the idea that something other than God alone could change the will (free will) was the open door for coercion in spiritual and political matters.

This is one of the most important concepts that a Reformed person can understand when he is trying to develop a political philosophy.

I honestly hadn't heard of that, but I had considered it back when I was an Arminian, I wondered why a Calvinist would ever support enforcing morality to any degree because it seemed that it would be pointless for them to do so.

[erowe1]

Well, there's this:



I admit I don't know how to interpret the passage in question. Verse 3 just seems to be obviously false, rulers often reward evil and punish good. So I'm honestly not sure what Paul is trying to say there. Not knowing Greek doesn't exactly help me here either.

There's also that "Honor the Emperor" line in 1 Peter (Or is it 2 Peter? Can't remember for sure.)


I honestly hadn't heard of that, but I had considered it back when I was an Arminian, I wondered why a Calvinist would ever support enforcing morality to any degree because it seemed that it would be pointless for them to do so.

At most those passages teach submission to the kings that exist. But they don't say anything to condemn any lack of a king.

[Christian Liberty]

At most those passages teach submission to the kings that exist. But they don't say anything to condemn any lack of a king.

So, how are we supposed to institute anarchy? By obeying? I don't think that works.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just showing you where people could get it from.

[mczerone]

I listened to most of his sermon, and most of what he said was completely accurate. Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God instituted government among men.

One rebuttal: The temptation of Jesus. "You can have all the nations of the world" "NO"

From the reading, the evil one has dominion over all the nation-states - they are ungodly and anti-human. Jesus does not want states to be under his control, he wants people to follow his teachings. The only way the temptation has any meaning is if Jesus understood that the very notion of a state was anti-human and was an evil that could be offered by the evil one.

[erowe1]

So, how are we supposed to institute anarchy? By obeying? I don't think that works.

Mind you, I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just showing you where people could get it from.

I'm not saying we should institute it. Or that we ever can or will. I personally think it's impossible. But when it comes to the choice between having an earthly king or not having one (apart from Jesus, if one understands the Messianic kingdom to be an earthly one), having one is always bad.

Even if total elimination of states is only an ideal that can at best be approached asymptotically, that still makes it good and not bad.

[erowe1]

I listened to most of his sermon, and most of what he said was completely accurate. Anarchy is completely incompatible with Biblical principles. It's entirely inconsistent with with what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that God instituted government among men.

But God ordained everything else too. The fact that something is ordained by God doesn't mean it's not morally evil. Are we really supposed to say that everything rulers do is morally good just because God is sovereign over them?

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not saying we should institute it. Or that we ever can or will. I personally think it's impossible. But when it comes to the choice between having an earthly king or not having one (apart from Jesus, if one understands the Messianic kingdom to be an earthly one), having one is always bad.

Even if total elimination of states is only an ideal that can at best be approached asymptotically, that still makes it good and not bad.

I can't really disagree withb that. But I don't think an anarchist country could really survive anyway.

Minarchy is the next best option.

The fundamental question is, what are we going to do about THIS regime?

[Brett85]

Go to the Romans 13 threads and read Erowe's posts about it.

Chuck Baldwin wrote an entire book about Romans 13 and how it doesn't really mean that we are to "submit" to the governing authorities in all situations. But, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's not what Chuck Baldwin is talking about. The Bible says that God instituted the government among men and makes it clear that God believes in having some kind of law and order, but neither Chuck Baldwin nor I are saying that Christians are supposed to submit to the government in every situation and never resist tyrannical laws.

[erowe1]

Chuck Baldwin wrote an entire book about Romans 13 and how it doesn't really mean that we are to "submit" to the governing authorities in all situations. But, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's not what Chuck Baldwin is talking about. The Bible says that God instituted the government among men and makes it clear that God believes in having some kind of law and order, but neither Chuck Baldwin nor I are saying that Christians are supposed to submit to the government in every situation and never resist tyrannical laws.

But if you agree that God sets up evil kings, you can't turn around and say that the fact that God set up a king means that kings are a good thing. Just because Hitler was ordained by God doesn't mean that God "believed in" Hitler (to borrow your phrase).

I have Baldwin's book, and have read it. There's a lot I agree with. I think he'll still come around to seeing Romans 13 as fully compatible with the overall anti-state message of the Bible. He's already saying things that point in that direction, such as a chapter in that book on the fact that rulers are bound by the same moral law as everyone else. That point right there completely undermines statism.

[erowe1]

Incidentally, the co-author of that book is Chuck Baldwin's son, Timothy. Here's a great column he wrote against the US Constitution and the government it institutes.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Timothy/baldwin146.htm

[Christian Liberty]

Chuck Baldwin wrote an entire book about Romans 13 and how it doesn't really mean that we are to "submit" to the governing authorities in all situations. But, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's not what Chuck Baldwin is talking about. The Bible says that God instituted the government among men and makes it clear that God believes in having some kind of law and order, but neither Chuck Baldwin nor I are saying that Christians are supposed to submit to the government in every situation and never resist tyrannical laws.

erowe and Sola_Fide are going farther than that, they're saying that Romans 13 doesn't suggest that there should be a State at all.

[Sola_Fide]

Chuck Baldwin wrote an entire book about Romans 13 and how it doesn't really mean that we are to "submit" to the governing authorities in all situations. But, that's not what I'm talking about, and it's not what Chuck Baldwin is talking about. The Bible says that God instituted the government among men and makes it clear that God believes in having some kind of law and order, but neither Chuck Baldwin nor I are saying that Christians are supposed to submit to the government in every situation and never resist tyrannical laws.

I do not see in the Bible where God "instituted" any government, as though it must be an integral part of man's life. The family is different. From the beginning of creation, the family is an ordained institution.

[July]

The we is not me.

Don't get so hung up on labels, listen to the content of his message...he's preaching the non aggression principle, that liberty does not mean you have a license to abandon your morals to do things to harm and violate others...liberty isn't about lawlessness or violence. He's absolutely right, and good on him for making it clear and telling those who think otherwise to take a hike.

[Matthew5]

Don't get so hung up on labels, listen to the content of his message...he's preaching the non aggression principle, that liberty does not mean you have a license to abandon your morals to do things to harm and violate others...liberty isn't about lawlessness or violence. He's absolutely right, and good on him for making it clear and telling those who think otherwise to take a hike.

...except he equated anarchy with lawlessness and violence. I would say it was an ignorant statement but I have a feeling he knows better.

[mczerone]

Don't get so hung up on labels, listen to the content of his message...he's preaching the non aggression principle, that liberty does not mean you have a license to abandon your morals to do things to harm and violate others...liberty isn't about lawlessness or violence. He's absolutely right, and good on him for making it clear and telling those who think otherwise to take a hike.

But in explaining those ideals, Baldwin uses the label "anarchist".

While it's ambiguous and has a negative connotation, he clearly meant it as understood in the libertarian community.

If Baldwin wasn't so hung up on labels, there'd be no thread here.

[Brett85]

Don't get so hung up on labels, listen to the content of his message...he's preaching the non aggression principle, that liberty does not mean you have a license to abandon your morals to do things to harm and violate others...liberty isn't about lawlessness or violence. He's absolutely right, and good on him for making it clear and telling those who think otherwise to take a hike.

Exactly. It seems like this forum has been taken over by anarchists.

[erowe1]

...except he equated anarchy with lawlessness and violence. I would say it was an ignorant statement but I have a feeling he knows better.

It's not ignorant.



an·ar·chy
[an-er-kee]
noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy. Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.
anarchism ( def 1 ) .
4.
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination: the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.
confusion and disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith. It was impossible to find the book I was looking for in the anarchy of his bookshelves. Synonyms: chaos, disruption, turbulence; license; disorganization, disintegration.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t

[LibertyEagle]

...except he equated anarchy with lawlessness and violence. I would say it was an ignorant statement but I have a feeling he knows better.

Who gives a shit? This movement is not for the purpose of selling anarchy. Read what July said again. From what I heard in the video, that was the point Baldwin was trying to make.

[Brett85]

...except he equated anarchy with lawlessness and violence. I would say it was an ignorant statement but I have a feeling he knows better.

That's because it is associated with lawlessness and violence. I you had no government, there would be no way to punish those who commit acts of aggression against others. That is the primary reason why the government exists, to punish people for aggressing against others.

[Brett85]

But if you agree that God sets up evil kings, you can't turn around and say that the fact that God set up a king means that kings are a good thing. Just because Hitler was ordained by God doesn't mean that God "believed in" Hitler (to borrow your phrase).

I have Baldwin's book, and have read it. There's a lot I agree with. I think he'll still come around to seeing Romans 13 as fully compatible with the overall anti-state message of the Bible. He's already saying things that point in that direction, such as a chapter in that book on the fact that rulers are bound by the same moral law as everyone else. That point right there completely undermines statism.

Just because there are evil leaders of countries doesn't mean that having a leader of a country is evil itself. And I think that God allows certain things to happen on earth that aren't necessarily part of his will.

[Sola_Fide]

That's because it is associated with lawlessness and violence. I you had no government, there would be no way to punish those who commit acts of aggression against others. That is the primary reason why the government exists, to punish people for aggressing against others.

Well, I don't agree with that. Anyway, it seems if aggressing against others was the concern, then government itself would be what you would want to eliminate, since it institutionalizes aggression.

[erowe1]

The fundamental question is, what are we going to do about THIS regime?

Let's say that is the fundamental question.

To me, once we know what to do about every regime, we automatically know what to do about this one.

Christians should see themselves as natural enemies of the state. Our allegiance is always to a different king than the one here who demands it. If we shrink the state, no matter how much we shrink it, this will always be the fundamental description of our relationship to it. We won't reach a point before Jesus returns where we will say, "Now, at last, the earthly rulers are on God's side."

[Sola_Fide]

And I think that God allows certain things to happen on earth that aren't necessarily part of his will.

That is not Biblical at all. Everything that happens is because of God's will. Every single thing.

[Brett85]

Well, I don't agree with that. Anyway, it seems if aggressing against others was the concern, then government itself would be what you would want to eliminate, since it institutionalizes aggression.

If you didn't have any government, then you would just have individuals aggressing against each other, hurting each other, and owning each other and taking away private property from each other. Why would that be any better?

[erowe1]

Just because there are evil leaders of countries doesn't mean that having a leader of a country is evil itself.

But it does take away the argument you used. If God ordains evil rulers, which Romans 13 says, then you can't appeal to God's ordination of rulers as proof that having a ruler is morally good.


And I think that God allows certain things to happen on earth that aren't necessarily part of his will.

Then why can't you believe that the state is one of those things?

[mczerone]

That's because it is associated with lawlessness and violence. I you had no government, there would be no way to punish those who commit acts of aggression against others. That is the primary reason why the government exists, to punish people for aggressing against others.

Really?

[Brett85]

That is not Biblical at all. Everything that happens is because of God's will. Every single thing.

So it was part of God's will when Adam sinned against God and ate the forbidden fruit? It was part of God's will when Satan rebelled and turned against him?

[Brett85]

Really?

Yes, of course. There would be no way to punish aggression without a government and a way to keep people in prison for infringing on the rights of others. You would just have a society where people would be free to violate the rights of others at will.

[mczerone]

Who gives a shit? This movement is not for the purpose of selling anarchy. Read what July said again. From what I heard in the video, that was the point Baldwin was trying to make.

You say that as if you own some singular "movement".

You might not be working for that, so that's not your movement. But it could be some of ours, and you're not helping by trying to crowd them out.

[Brett85]

You say that as if you own some singular "movement".

You might not be working for that, so that's not your movement. But it could be some of ours, and you're not helping by trying to crowd them out.

Ron Paul is the leader of the movement and the main reason why people post here, and he supports limited government, Constitutional principles, and rejects anarchy.

[mczerone]

Yes, of course. There would be no way to punish aggression without a government and a way to keep people in prison for infringing on the rights of others. You would just have a society where people would be free to violate the rights of others at will.

And children would all be illiterate, the poor would die in the streets, everyone would be hooked on heroin, no musicians would record music, and nobody would be able to own any property.

I'm pretty sure I've had a similar discussion with you before about how security/justice could possibly be handled without a state. I'm not going to get into it again. If it wasn't you, I'd just suggest actually going to read something, maybe those numerous threads here discussing the very topic that you surely have seen since you're complaining that RPFs has been "taken over by anarchists", before you make claims about something you haven't researched.

[erowe1]

So it was part of God's will when Adam sinned against God and ate the forbidden fruit? It was part of God's will when Satan rebelled and turned against him?

God ordained those things just like he ordains rulers, like Romans 13 is talking about.

[mczerone]

Ron Paul is the leader of the movement and the main reason why people post here, and he supports limited government, Constitutional principles, and rejects anarchy.

First: Ron has disavowed "leadership" - he says that he's a conduit, a messenger, a teacher. He said that there should be no particular leader, that this shouldn't be a cult of personality.

Second: Citation needed.

[BuddyRey]

Exactly. It seems like this forum has been taken over by anarchists.

Almost all of us were minarchists when we first got here, so we didn't really set out with the intention to "take anything over."

[mczerone]

So it was part of God's will when Adam sinned against God and ate the forbidden fruit? It was part of God's will when Satan rebelled and turned against him?

You doubt his omnipotence? Without that, what is God?

[mczerone]

Almost all of us were minarchists when we first got here, so we didn't really set out with the intention to "take anything over."

Damn Ron Paul for telling us to read Rothbard, Bastiat, et al. It's almost like he wanted to turn us into dastardly anarchists. :)

[Sola_Fide]

So it was part of God's will when Adam sinned against God and ate the forbidden fruit?

Yes.


It was part of God's will when Satan rebelled and turned against him?

Yes.

[LibertyEagle]

Damn Ron Paul for telling us to read Rothbard, Bastiat, et al. It's almost like he wanted to turn us into dastardly anarchists. :)

Hardly. Ron Paul managed to read that stuff and didn't become an anarchist. So did Rand Paul and I would imagine a whole lot of people on this forum, who also are not anarchists.

[LibertyEagle]

You doubt his omnipotence? Without that, what is God?

God gave us free will. Surely this is not news to you.

[Brett85]

You doubt his omnipotence? Without that, what is God?

There are things that God allows to happen that aren't neccessarily part of his original will. He knows everything that's going to happen and allows it to happen, but not everything that happens is part of God's will.

[Cabal]

Exactly. It seems like this forum has been taken over by anarchists.

Liberty is appealing. Who knew?

[Christian Liberty]

Hardly. Ron Paul managed to read that stuff and didn't become an anarchist. So did Rand Paul and I would imagine a whole lot of people on this forum, who also are not anarchists.

Very true, although I'll remind you that some ancaps do believe Ron is an anarchist.

[Christian Liberty]

God gave us free will. Surely this is not news to you.

The Bible disagrees with you.



So it was part of God's will when Adam sinned against God and ate the forbidden fruit? It was part of God's will when Satan rebelled and turned against him?










In some sense that would have to be true, since otherwise God would have prevented it. That said, neither Adam or Lucifer was created with a sin nature. Every human being inherited their sin nature through Adam. So there's a difference between those situations.

[Christian Liberty]

There are things that God allows to happen that aren't neccessarily part of his original will. He knows everything that's going to happen and allows it to happen, but not everything that happens is part of God's will.

I assume you're an Arminian?

[LibertyEagle]

Very true, although I'll remind you that some ancaps do believe Ron is an anarchist.

So? Some people believe in little green men too. It doesn't make it so.

[Christian Liberty]

So? Some people believe in little green men too. It doesn't make it so.

I can understand why they think that though, even though I disagree with them. Little green men, not so much.

[LibertyEagle]

The Bible disagrees with you.

No it doesn't.

[BuddyRey]

Damn Ron Paul for telling us to read Rothbard, Bastiat, et al. It's almost like he wanted to turn us into dastardly anarchists. :)

Exactly! And a lot of us only started reading Rothbard's stuff because RP himself recommended him so highly, so if anything, he's the one to blame for the forums being "taken over" by us.

Besides, even though Ron himself believes in a limited state (at least for practical purposes), he's never made it a point to chastise those among his supporters (and even his close colleagues and friends) who feel differently.

The anarchist-minarchist rift is not only completely unnecessary, but outright counterproductive, and the best thing that could possibly happen to outright statists and their enablers is for us to keep feuding like this.

[Christian Liberty]

If you didn't have any government, then you would just have individuals aggressing against each other, hurting each other, and owning each other and taking away private property from each other. Why would that be any better?

I think that may depend how you define "government".


Let's say that is the fundamental question.

To me, once we know what to do about every regime, we automatically know what to do about this one.

Christians should see themselves as natural enemies of the state. Our allegiance is always to a different king than the one here who demands it. If we shrink the state, no matter how much we shrink it, this will always be the fundamental description of our relationship to it. We won't reach a point before Jesus returns where we will say, "Now, at last, the earthly rulers are on God's side."

How do you reconcile being an enemy of the state with "Honoring the Emperor"?

Just curious how you'd answer that, since I've been asked things like that before.

No it doesn't.

John 6:37 and John 10:26-27 makes very clear that Salvation has nothing to do with free will. Romans 3:10 proves that there iis nobody who is righteous.

[Brett85]

I assume you're an Arminian?

I'm not sure. I just believe that it's more complex than to say that everything that happens on earth happens for a reason. Maybe I'm wrong, but God gives us free will and allows us to make our own choices, that shapes our lives. Also, many of the terrible things that happen here on earth like murder, natural disasters, vehicle accidents, etc, are all caused by sin and man's rebellion against God, and sin was not part of God's original will for mankind.

[Christian Liberty]

Exactly! And a lot of us only started reading Rothbard's stuff because RP himself recommended him so highly, so if anything, he's the one to blame for the forums being "taken over" by us.

Besides, even though Ron himself believes in a limited state (at least for practical purposes), he's never made it a point to chastise those among his supporters (and even his close colleagues and friends) who feel differently.

The anarchist-minarchist rift is not only completely unnecessary, but outright counterproductive, and the best thing that could possibly happen to outright statists and their enablers is for us to keep feuding like this.

Exactly!

Now, regarding the OP, the problem for Chuck is that apparently he isn't actually a very good Biblical expositor. That makes me sad considering all he's done for liberty, but I can't take him very seriously as a preacher based on that.

[Brett85]

Liberty is appealing. Who knew?

Anarchy is not liberty, as Ron Paul and every other liberty candidate in Congress understands.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not sure. I just believe that it's more complex than to say that everything that happens on earth happens for a reason. Maybe I'm wrong, but God gives us free will and allows us to make our own choices, that shapes our lives. Also, many of the terrible things that happen here on earth like murder, natural disasters, vehicle accidents, etc, are all caused by sin and man's rebellion against God, and sin was not part of God's original will for mankind.

I trust that, one way or another, God works all things together for good.

Most Reformed/Calvinistic Christians believe that God has both a secret and a revealed will (Sola_Fide used different terminology when we discussed it, but I think we were talking about the same thing) and make distinction between the two. Everything that happens is ordained by God's secret will, but much of it is opposed by his revealed will, if that makes sense.

[Brett85]

Exactly! And a lot of us only started reading Rothbard's stuff because RP himself recommended him so highly, so if anything, he's the one to blame for the forums being "taken over" by us.

Besides, even though Ron himself believes in a limited state (at least for practical purposes), he's never made it a point to chastise those among his supporters (and even his close colleagues and friends) who feel differently.

The anarchist-minarchist rift is not only completely unnecessary, but outright counterproductive, and the best thing that could possibly happen to outright statists and their enablers is for us to keep feuding like this.

I'm not chastising anarchists, just disagreeing with them. I didn't see anywhere in Baldwin's sermon where he "chastised" anarchists either.

[Cabal]

Anarchy is not liberty, as Ron Paul and every other liberty candidate in Congress understands.

"liberty candidate in Congress" -- Lol.

[Christian Liberty]

Anarchy is not liberty, as Ron Paul and every other liberty candidate in Congress understands.

Once again, define "anarchy."

Do you understand the difference, at least in theory, between what people like Rothbard, Tom Woods, and the ancaps here propose, and straight up lawlessness?

[Brett85]

Once again, define "anarchy."

Do you understand the difference, at least in theory, between what people like Rothbard, Tom Woods, and the ancaps here propose, and straight up lawlessness?

Yes, but I don't accept that we would ever have the type of order that Tom Woods and others think we would have without a government. It just isn't realistic.

[shane77m]

Could be worse. Everyone in Congress could be a totalitarian.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not chastising anarchists, just disagreeing with them. I didn't see anywhere in Baldwin's sermon where he "chastised" anarchists either.

He told them to leave his church. As if that, of all things, should be what should divide Christians. Nevermind actual theological issues, or even relevant political issues, he just had to attack the anarchists.

I like Chuck Baldwin as a political candidate but that clip was just seven minutes of nothing. He completely redefines "liberty" in the Biblical sense to try to use it to support the declaration of independence, and turns Christian liberty into a justification for government. Its ridiculous.




"liberty candidate in Congress" -- Lol.

OK, if you don't think Justin Amash and Tom Massie are on our side, your tent is too small.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, but I don't accept that we would ever have the type of order that Tom Woods and others think we would have without a government. It just isn't realistic.

I'm not sure that its possible either, hence why, believe it or not, I'm not an anarchist. But we really don't need to fight over this now, and certainly not in the aggressive manner that Chuck Baldwin is.

[Brett85]

"liberty candidate in Congress" -- Lol.

So you don't even think that Justin Amash and Thomas Massie are libertarians are liberty candidates/politicians? I know a lot of libertarians don't like Rand, but Amash and Massie at least seem really solid.

[Christian Liberty]

To be fair, its possible that Chuck is more mad at people who are accusing him of being an anarchist, rather than the actual anarchists, but I'm not sure.

[pcosmar]

It was part of God's will when Satan rebelled and turned against him?

Yes.



Well that is an obvious contradiction.

Either he did not rebel.. and he was doing Gods will as intended. (obedience)
Or he did Rebel,, against Gods will. (disobedience)

You may want to rethink that.

[Brett85]

He told them to leave his church.

I don't remember him saying that. What part of the video did he specifically say that?

[Christian Liberty]

So you don't even think that Justin Amash and Thomas Massie are libertarians are liberty candidates/politicians? I know a lot of libertarians don't like Rand, but Amash and Massie at least seem really solid.

They are. I've never heard anything bad from Massie at all. Amash has made a couple statements I don't love, but he's solid the vast majority of the time. Rand Paul is pretty good too, but Amash and Massie are a tier above Rand IMO.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't remember him saying that. What part of the video did he specifically say that?

He said something along the lines of "If you support anarchy, this isn't the place of worship for you."

[Cabal]

OK, if you don't think Justin Amash and Tom Massie are on our side, your tent is too small.

You misunderstand me. I have nothing personal against these people, or what they are trying to do. I'm sure their intentions are good. I simply have no respect for the institution of Congress, given that it is essentially an organism of the State which serves to deceive people into thinking that virtue, good, justice and, as mentioned, liberty can be seized through it. Liberty has never emerged from Congress. Liberty emerges from people who choose to recognize it, value it, and demand it. In this bizarro world we've constructed, people have been herded into forfeiting it to the State that they may then beg for it back from Congress through 'candidates' who then draft and pass legislation (force) through the State apparatus, as if this were some process that at all resembles anything even remotely close to liberty.

It's all patently absurd. So, you'll have to forgive me for lmao at the "liberty candidate in Congress" line.

[Brett85]

He said something along the lines of "If you support anarchy, this isn't the place of worship for you."

Well, maybe he could've phrased that a little differently, but I don't think he was actually ordering people to leave his church. He was probably just saying that an anarchist wouldn't like to listen to his sermons since he doesn't promote anarchy.

[Acala]

Is government only by the consent of the governed anarchy?

[erowe1]

Is government only by the consent of the governed anarchy?

Great question.

It definitely would not count as a state.

[BuddyRey]

Is government only by the consent of the governed anarchy?

This is a great...nay, an excellent question.

[mczerone]

Is government only by the consent of the governed anarchy?

I would consider it so.

If you legitimately consent to a particular government, then you are not being "ruled" by anyone but yourself.

[Acala]

I would consider it so.

If you legitimately consent to a particular government, then you are not being "ruled" by anyone but yourself.

Then the Declaration of Independence is a manifesto of anarchy and those who subscribed it were anarchists.

[Christian Liberty]

You misunderstand me. I have nothing personal against these people, or what they are trying to do. I'm sure their intentions are good. I simply have no respect for the institution of Congress, given that it is essentially an organism of the State which serves to deceive people into thinking that virtue, good, justice and, as mentioned, liberty can be seized through it. Liberty has never emerged from Congress. Liberty emerges from people who choose to recognize it, value it, and demand it. In this bizarro world we've constructed, people have been herded into forfeiting it to the State that they may then beg for it back from Congress through 'candidates' who then draft and pass legislation (force) through the State apparatus, as if this were some process that at all resembles anything even remotely close to liberty.

It's all patently absurd. So, you'll have to forgive me for lmao at the "liberty candidate in Congress" line.

OK, so are you also denying that Ron Paul was a liberty candidate? I wouldn't quite compare Amash or Massie to Ron, although I think at least Massie seems like he's pretty close, but I'm guessing based on what you said, it doesn't matter.

We need to fight back politically AND educationally. Not only should we not emphasize one over the other, but we should actually try to do both at the same time. As (ancap) Walter Block says "Its a false choice between Ron Paul style Republicanism or education, the former is perhaps the best means to attain the latter!"


Well, maybe he could've phrased that a little differently, but I don't think he was actually ordering people to leave his church. He was probably just saying that an anarchist wouldn't like to listen to his sermons since he doesn't promote anarchy.

I'm guessing he wouldn't actually kick them out, but it seemed like he was deliberately making them unwelcome.

Then again, I doubt I could attend his church either, it seems like he doesn't really have a very good understanding of the Bible, if this clip is any indictation. Although, I admit I don't know if he always preaches the same way he did in that clip. Also, IIRC he's an Arminian, and I don't think I could permanently sit under an Arminian pastor at this point.

[mczerone]

Then the Declaration of Independence is a manifesto of anarchy and those who subscribed it were anarchists.

Agreed. And that's why so few of them were invited to sign the Constitution.

[Christian Liberty]

Is government only by the consent of the governed anarchy?

I'd say if you actually go as far with that as the anarchists do, as in, consent of ALL the governed, than yes.

That said, I don't think the DOI intended to take that quite as far as the ancaps do. I'm guessing they meant consent of the people (The majority of them) in all the colonies.

[LibertyEagle]

You misunderstand me. I have nothing personal against these people, or what they are trying to do. I'm sure their intentions are good. I simply have no respect for the institution of Congress, given that it is essentially an organism of the State which serves to deceive people into thinking that virtue, good, justice and, as mentioned, liberty can be seized through it. Liberty has never emerged from Congress. Liberty emerges from people who choose to recognize it, value it, and demand it. In this bizarro world we've constructed, people have been herded into forfeiting it to the State that they may then beg for it back from Congress through 'candidates' who then draft and pass legislation (force) through the State apparatus, as if this were some process that at all resembles anything even remotely close to liberty.

It's all patently absurd. So, you'll have to forgive me for lmao at the "liberty candidate in Congress" line.

I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but “eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action. -- Ron Paul

But here we face an inner problem and a paradox not only for libertarians, but for any radical, minority ideological movement. For marginal movements attract marginal people. Such movements are filled with what Germans call luftmenschen, people with no steady jobs, incomes, or visible means of support; the sort of people who instinctively alienate the mainstream bourgeois Americans, not so much by the content of their ideas, but by their style, lack of moorings, and “counterculture.” -- Murray Rothbard

If a serious opportunity should arise… for the movement to make a great leap into Middle America, into genuine influence in our society, that Libertarian luftmenschen will react not with enthusiasm but in fear and trembling. For far greater than their professed love of liberty is their hostility to bourgeois America. -- Murray Rothbard

OK, do we want libertarianism to win, to make a big dent in America, or do we not? If we don’t want to win, why be in a political party at all? Why not simply form a social club and forget victory? And if we’re really devoted to liberty, how can we not do our best for liberty to win? Are we really libertarians, or are we just playing around? -- Murray Rothbard

[Acala]

I'd say if you actually go as far with that as the anarchists do, as in, consent of ALL the governed, than yes.

That said, I don't think the DOI intended to take that quite as far as the ancaps do. I'm guessing they meant consent of the people (The majority of them) in all the colonies.

The Founders were too clear-headed to mistake democracy for consent. In fact one of the few things virtually all of them agreed on was the evil of democracy.

[Acala]

I'd say if you actually go as far with that as the anarchists do, as in, consent of ALL the governed, than yes.

That said, I don't think the DOI intended to take that quite as far as the ancaps do. I'm guessing they meant consent of the people (The majority of them) in all the colonies.

Suppose you, Buddyrey, Mczerone, and I all had a vote and we voted to enslave you and take all of your property and divide it up among us, would you consider that you consented?

[July]

...except he equated anarchy with lawlessness and violence. I would say it was an ignorant statement but I have a feeling he knows better.

Sometimes things appear the opposite of what they are. Consider that the state always holds itself up as a defender of law and order against disorder and chaos, despite the fact that it's very nature is the opposite...it nonetheless holds itself up as the epitome of order.

[Christian Liberty]

Suppose you, Buddyrey, Mczerone, and I all had a vote and we voted to enslave you and take all of your property and divide it up among us, would you consider that you consented?

I didn't necessarily say I agreed with the DOI.

I just don't think they meant the same thing the ancaps mean.

[jmdrake]

Then again, IIRC he's an Arminian so I'm not surprised.

Oh really?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin263.htm
Religiously, I am a born again Christian who worships in an Independent Baptist Church. I am pre-millennial in my view of eschatology and would consider myself somewhat of a Spurgeon- Calvinist. I believe the Holy Bible to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God. I believe in a triune Godhead. I believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. I believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. I believe in a literal heaven and a literal hell. I believe in tithing.

I try not to hold that against him. ;)

[Christian Liberty]

Oh really?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin263.htm
Religiously, I am a born again Christian who worships in an Independent Baptist Church. I am pre-millennial in my view of eschatology and would consider myself somewhat of a Spurgeon- Calvinist. I believe the Holy Bible to be the inerrant, infallible Word of God. I believe in a triune Godhead. I believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God. I believe that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. I believe in a literal heaven and a literal hell. I believe in tithing.

I try not to hold that against him. ;)

I forgot what it was he said about free will that made me think he was an Arminian. Guess I was wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that every scripture he quoted during that 7 minute clip was out of context.

[erowe1]

I forgot what it was he said about free will that made me think he was an Arminian. Guess I was wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that every scripture he quoted during that 7 minute clip was out of context.

I've encountered a lot of people from similar stripes who insist on calling themselves moderate Calvinists and need to be very generous with the term to pull that off.

Norman Geisler wrote a book arguing for a position that he called moderate Calvinism. But if he's a moderate Calvinist, then Arminius was a hyper-Calvinist.

[Christian Liberty]

I've encountered a lot of people from similar stripes who insist on calling themselves moderate Calvinists and need to be very generous with the term to pull that off.

When I think, "Moderate Calvinism" I think of this:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/where-you-calvinism-chart-20840/

Not saying its perfect, but this is the most helpful chart I've seen, although admittedly, the more Arminian you get, the less useful it is. The extreme Arminian positions may not be covered at all. I'd define myself as a "Moderate Calvinist" for the most part according to that definition. 5-points, infralapsarian. Although I'd have to see "Common Grace" defined first. I don't think I believe in that, at least not if I understand the definition of such. So I'm probably a little more "high" than I am "low" but still broadly moderate.


Norman Geisler wrote a book arguing for a position that he called moderate Calvinism. But if he's a moderate Calvinist, then Arminius was a hyper-Calvinist.

I never read Geisler's book, but how can anyone be more in the "free will" direction than Arminius yet claim to be a Calvinist? That doesn't really make any sense.

[Acala]

I didn't necessarily say I agreed with the DOI.

I just don't think they meant the same thing the ancaps mean.

You think that Jefferson meant democracy when he said "consent of the governed"?

[Tywysog Cymru]

God tells us to obey the laws that government gives us, unless they contradict the laws of God. Doesn't mean I support every law, but I won't break them. Anarchy was there in the Garden of Eden, but after the fall people could not govern themselves and needed the institution of government.

As a supporter of limited government, I would be frightened if the US government suddenly collapsed and we descended into anarchy. There would be no laws, vigilante justice would be the norm, lynchings and other cruel punishments would be common, and the minorities would be cruelly oppressed by the majority. People would live in fear, banding together into factions and seeking to exert dominance over the other factions.

It's idealism that makes anarchy attractive, but in reality it has never worked successfully beyond very small groups.

[Christian Liberty]

You think that Jefferson meant democracy when he said "consent of the governed"?

No. But I don't think he meant consent of every single person either.

God tells us to obey the laws that government gives us, unless they contradict the laws of God. Doesn't mean I support every law, but I won't break them.

I don't agree with that anymore.

[BuddyRey]

God tells us to obey the laws that government gives us, unless they contradict the laws of God.

A political state as we know it must, as an absolute prerequisite for its existence, be in constant violation of the commandment which says, "thou shalt not steal"; and far more often than not, it violates "thou shalt not kill" as well.

[Sola_Fide]

Well that is an obvious contradiction.

Either he did not rebel.. and he was doing Gods will as intended. (obedience)
Or he did Rebel,, against Gods will. (disobedience)

You may want to rethink that.

Or, there is a difference between

1. God's revealed will (don't rebel)

and

2. God's decree (there is a reason for sin that will eventually bring glory to God)

This is what the Bible teaches. God has a reason for the bad things that happen.

[Christian Liberty]

A political state as we know it must, as an absolute prerequisite for its existence, be in constant violation of the commandment which says, "thou shalt not steal"; and far more often than not, it violates "thou shalt not kill" as well.

He's saying as long as his obedience isn't violating the law of God you have to obey.

Not if the law itself violates the law of God.

In other words, if the law says drive 55 miles an hour on the highway, and wear a safety belt, than you have to obey because even though that law is wrong, obedience isn't a violation of God's Law.

But if the government tells you to murder someone, you should disobey because to obey would be a violation of God's law.

That said, this line of thinking creates a lot of gray areas. Is paying taxes to Hitler the right thing to do? Or is that enabling him?

[erowe1]

I never read Geisler's book, but how can anyone be more in the "free will" direction than Arminius yet claim to be a Calvinist? That doesn't really make any sense.

I think it's because in evangelical circles there's a stigma to the label "Arminian."

[Matthew5]

I see this thread opened up the flood gates. It shows me that we have some work to do in educating others in the liberty movement (including Mr. Baldwin) about Anarchism as a philosophy.

[erowe1]

God tells us to obey the laws that government gives us, unless they contradict the laws of God.

Where?

[Christian Liberty]

I think it's because in evangelical circles there's a stigma to the label "Arminian."

Then they should invent a new word. Claiming to be "Calvinist" when you don't believe at least four of the five points is just being unnecessarily confusing. And I'd call four points Amyraldians, not Calvinists.

Where?

You already know where he gets it, show him why he's wrong.

[Cabal]

OK, so are you also denying that Ron Paul was a liberty candidate? I wouldn't quite compare Amash or Massie to Ron, although I think at least Massie seems like he's pretty close, but I'm guessing based on what you said, it doesn't matter.

We need to fight back politically AND educationally. Not only should we not emphasize one over the other, but we should actually try to do both at the same time. As (ancap) Walter Block says "Its a false choice between Ron Paul style Republicanism or education, the former is perhaps the best means to attain the latter!"

I don't personally see much value in attempting to achieve liberty through the system put in place by the State--the very establishment which is necessarily antithetical to liberty. Naturally, Ron Paul has plenty of good qualities, and has made plenty of good contributions, but I don't consider him without flaw, and I wouldn't have personally chosen to take the same approach (political) as he chose. It's possible that Block is right--I certainly don't have all the answers, but I'd argue that, IMO, it both sends a mixed message, and is a bit contradictory. I suppose it all comes down to goals. Many people who identify with libertarian ideology of some persuasion have the goal of shrinking the State, but I don't share that goal, and I actually tend to see it as rather counterproductive. So, as long as I am convinced of that, it wouldn't make much sense for me to continue supporting it.

[erowe1]

You already know where he gets it, show him why he's wrong.

Whatever passage he's talking about, I guarantee that the caveat "unless they contradict the laws of God" is not written there.

[LibertyEagle]

I see this thread opened up the flood gates. It shows me that we have some work to do in educating others in the liberty movement (including Mr. Baldwin) about Anarchism as a philosophy.

Why? This movement isn't for the purpose of furthering anarchy. :rolleyes:

[Matthew5]

Why? This movement isn't for the purpose of furthering anarchy. :rolleyes:

It should at least serve the purpose of not being ignorant (or a blatant stereotyper).

[noneedtoaggress]

Why? This movement isn't for the purpose of furthering anarchy. :rolleyes:

What movement are you talking about? The paleoconservative movement?

[Brett85]

What movement are you talking about? The paleoconservative movement?

I doubt it. He's probably just talking about supporting Ron's movement of limited government.

[torchbearer]

Christians should not be seeking an earthly king.

[Christian Liberty]

Whatever passage he's talking about, I guarantee that the caveat "unless they contradict the laws of God" is not written there.

That much at the very least is implied. Although some Christians irrationally exclude certain government commands for this. Anyone who thinks its OK for a Christian to go kill in Iraq isn't much of a Christian.

Why? This movement isn't for the purpose of furthering anarchy. :rolleyes:


I doubt it. He's probably just talking about supporting Ron's movement of limited government.

Its not really one, monolithic movement. Heck, there's some disagreement regarding just who is in the movement. Some of us will ally with certain people that others among us won't. Personally, I'm willing to associate myself with Rand Paul, but not Ted Cruz. Some here will ally with both. Others with neither. Heck, some radical ancaps won't even work with me since I'm a minarchist. At the end of the day, we're a broad group of people who all think government is way too involved in our lives.

I could say that anarchy does have a place within "liberty forest", its not the only place, but those people have a similar goal as me, even if we differ slightly on the details.

[erowe1]

That much at the very least is implied.

I don't think it is.

It would have to be a true caveat if we really did have moral obligations to obey the state. But the fact that the passages enjoining obedience to the state don't have that caveat is part of what tells me that a moral obligation to obey the state is not what they're talking about.

[Brett85]

Its not really one, monolithic movement. Heck, there's some disagreement regarding just who is in the movement. Some of us will ally with certain people that others among us won't. Personally, I'm willing to associate myself with Rand Paul, but not Ted Cruz. Some here will ally with both. Others with neither. Heck, some radical ancaps won't even work with me since I'm a minarchist. At the end of the day, we're a broad group of people who all think government is way too involved in our lives.

I could say that anarchy does have a place within "liberty forest", its not the only place, but those people have a similar goal as me, even if we differ slightly on the details.

Yeah, it's just that I'm not sure why people are being so critical of Baldwin for not supporting anarchy when even Ron wasn't in favor of anarchism.

[bunklocoempire]

Does anyone know who exactly Baldwin was speaking to? (what group/context?) Maybe I missed it.

My point is when I address someone or a group that I am somewhat familiar with I usually have a good idea of how they need to hear what I have to say.

Not that I'm an articulate s.o.b. but I try cater the message -just like I imagine we all do. (SHOULD do ;) )

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, it's just that I'm not sure why people are being so critical of Baldwin for not supporting anarchy when even Ron wasn't in favor of anarchism.


I'm criticzing Baldwin for the severeity of the rhetoric he used against anarchists, and even more importantly, the fact that he completely misinterpreted the Bible, not for opposing anarchy.

[Brett85]

I'm criticzing Baldwin for the severeity of the rhetoric he used against anarchists, and even more importantly, the fact that he completely misinterpreted the Bible, not for opposing anarchy.

Well, there is more than one interpretation of the Bible. :)

[Saint Vitus]

Now I remember why I didn't vote for this guy.

[pcosmar]

Or, there is a difference between



No,, That is not what you said..

You said that God MADE Satan Rebel.. That it was not an act of will. That Satan had no choice in the matter and was only doing what God Made him do.

If that was the case,, there was no rebellion. Satan was only doing what God made him do.


I disagree. I disagree with that whole line of thought.

[noneedtoaggress]

I doubt it. He's probably just talking about supporting Ron's movement of limited government.

"Ron's movement", if you even want to define such a thing, is fundamentally about educating people about libertarian ideas and Austrian Economics. This is clear, when he responds like this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI

and when you read his own words about why he even entered politics in the first place.

Everyone sees what they identify with out of Ron and want to use that for "their" own perspective of the liberty movement, which of course aligns with their own personal goals and worldview. Ron's views and actions are more complex than to pigeonhole it into a "limited government movement". His writing clearly illustrates this, when he talks about Austrian Economics or libertarian principles. What he does is much more fundamental and that's why his support base is so broad.

Of course, Ron would likely say he's just a part of the libertarian movement, and that would include even a broader stroke of libertarians than himself and his supporters.

[Matthew5]

Yeah, it's just that I'm not sure why people are being so critical of Baldwin for not supporting anarchy when even Ron wasn't in favor of anarchism.

Three issues:

A: He totally warped Scripture
B: He severely misrepresents anarchism
C: He was demeaning to other people in the liberty movement. Or at least it comes off this way without further context.

He can dislike anarchism all he wants, but don't be foolish about it.

[purplechoe]

Exactly. It seems like this forum has been taken over by anarchists.

Maybe some of us have simply evolved (not to mean that we are better then you) in our thinking. A lot of those who might have considered themselves to be conservatives or constitutionalists in the past have absorbed more information over time, decided that anarchy or anarcho-capitalism is a more preferable way to go.

As much as we would like to have our dream world and have everyone agree that our way of thinking is preferable, most of us would be at least somewhat elated if we had some type of constitutional-conservative government which resembled something of the founding of this country...

[Brett85]

As much as we would like to have our dream world and have everyone agree that our way of thinking is preferable, most of us would be at least somewhat elated if we had some type of constitutional-conservative government which resembled something of the founding of this country...

I would think so. Right now we can't even stop the growth of government, let alone abolish it. Anarchism might be fun to think about and fun to debate, but that's all it is. It's never going to hapen in America, realistically. It's even very unlikely that we'll ever return to Constitutional principles; getting Rand Paul as President and at least putting the breaks on the rapid growth of the federal government might be about the best we can hope for.

[PierzStyx]

Hmmm, if only we had an Apostolic tradition to accurately interpret Scripture... ;)

You're correct though, he's taking the word "liberty" in the political sense, a concept foreign to St. Paul.

If you aren't an actual Apostle, than your tradition is meaningless, powerless, and doctrinally useless.

[Brett85]

This is a comment that Baldwin wrote on his Facebook page as a response to a question about anarchism.

"Paul and Corey, thanks for the suggestion. I will definitely consider it. For starters, I am NOT an anarchist; neither do I believe the Bible teaches anarchism. I am for limited government, as were America's founders."

[PierzStyx]

I would think so. Right now we can't even stop the growth of government, let alone abolish it. Anarchism might be fun to think about and fun to debate, but that's all it is. It's never going to hapen in America, realistically. It's even very unlikely that we'll ever return to Constitutional principles; getting Rand Paul as President and at least putting the breaks on the rapid growth of the federal government might be about the best we can hope for.

Anarchism has as much a chance of being a reality as True Communism. For either to exist is a utopian fantasy that would require a complete revolutionary change in the very nature of human beings. It'll never happen because no matter how philosophically attractive it is a literal impossibility.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Anarchism has as much a chance of being a reality as True Communism. For either to exist is a utopian fantasy that would require a complete revolutionary change in the very nature of human beings. It'll never happen because no matter how philosophically attractive it is a literal impossibility.

The exact same thing could be said about minarchism. The same thing could have been said about chattel slavery in 1720.

[noneedtoaggress]

I would think so. Right now we can't even stop the growth of government, let alone abolish it. Anarchism might be fun to think about and fun to debate, but that's all it is. It's never going to hapen in America, realistically. It's even very unlikely that we'll ever return to Constitutional principles; getting Rand Paul as President and at least putting the breaks on the rapid growth of the federal government might be about the best we can hope for.

If that's the case then might as well just advocate for the ideal system, right? I mean if you think that even the "necessary evil" version is unlikely, then you might as well advocate for the morally and logically consistent one. :p

[purplechoe]

I would think so. Right now we can't even stop the growth of government, let alone abolish it. Anarchism might be fun to think about and fun to debate, but that's all it is. It's never going to hapen in America, realistically. It's even very unlikely that we'll ever return to Constitutional principles; getting Rand Paul as President and at least putting the breaks on the rapid growth of the federal government might be about the best we can hope for.

I agree. While I definitely have some things I disagree with Rand about it's mostly because he's more willing to play the game of politics then his father was. I refrain from criticizing him too much, I'm just worried that he'll surround himself with the likes of Benton when he makes his run.

Even if we had gotten Ron or Rand for that matter elected as president, to me it's more of an opportunity to engage the public in a real debate over what type of government we would like to have. If we don't change "the hearts and minds" of the public, nothing will ever change. Getting Ron or Rand elected would give the people at least a somewhat of an honest chance to make a decision about what type of government they want to live under otherwise the next president would just go back to business as usual. No true and meaningful change will ever take place unless we convince people that liberty is more preferable than security...

[erowe1]

If you aren't an actual Apostle, than your tradition is meaningless, powerless, and doctrinally useless.

The apostles didn't think that.

Paul told a bunch of non-apostles, "Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2).

[noneedtoaggress]

Anarchism has as much a chance of being a reality as True Communism. For either to exist is a utopian fantasy that would require a complete revolutionary change in the very nature of human beings. It'll never happen because no matter how philosophically attractive it is a literal impossibility.

Actually it just requires a revolutionary change in ideas, not human nature.

The state is a relatively new development when you take all of human history into account, so it's necessarily not a "literal impossibility". Of course you likely mean "modern industrial society" but the same thing was said about of slavery before it was abolished.

You could have just as well said the same thing about the impossibility of a "limited government" back before the American Revolution. America was a place of radical experimentation in government.

Communism suffers from an inability to calculate market prices, which is necessary for resources to be allocated effectively. Market anarchism does not suffer from this problem.

[Cabal]

I would think so. Right now we can't even stop the growth of government, let alone abolish it. Anarchism might be fun to think about and fun to debate, but that's all it is. It's never going to hapen in America, realistically. It's even very unlikely that we'll ever return to Constitutional principles; getting Rand Paul as President and at least putting the breaks on the rapid growth of the federal government might be about the best we can hope for.

There's a reason for that, you know. First, I'm not sure how one thinks that by actively participating in, and thereby lending legitimacy to something they will also somehow be discouraging its growth. That's the logical problem. The other problem is empirical, and historical. In practice, an effectively smaller State tends to mean a relatively freer market, which thus leads to greater wealth creation, a decline in poverty, and generally broader prosperity across the board. Unfortunately what follows is that the State recognizes a larger, deeper pool of taxable income and wealth which can be seized and used to expand. This expansion typically results in domestic welfare programs, among other things, which thus leads to the creation of additional bureaucracy. After that expansion takes place, it is virtually irreversible, and the resulting bureaucracies which were originally created to supposedly be a temporary solution to era-specific problems never goes away. Robert Higgs has described this whole process as the 'ratchet effect'. It is cyclical, and perpetual.

Delaying the State's growth is not only an entirely unproductive (if not counterproductive) goal, it's an entirely selfish one. All you're effectively doing is passing the burden along another generation, and saddling them with additional debt, and a larger State. All the while you're continuing to perpetuate the fantasy that within the State apparatus lies the answer to attaining your liberty, and putting a stop to the inherent, destructive, brutal nature of the State. In the long term, it doesn't matter who you put in the oval office. A peaceful society with true liberty isn't going to be easy, or quick. It's a generational battle, and it will be achieved by rejection; it's not an electoral battle achieved by participation. But if you are content with settling for table scraps, then that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to roll over so easily.

[pcosmar]

Communism suffers from an inability to calculate market prices, which is necessary for resources to be allocated effectively. Market anarchism does not suffer from this problem.

No,, Communism suffers from being contrary to human nature. It has never and never will exist.
Socialism is as close as you get and it has to be enforced.

[noneedtoaggress]

No,, Communism suffers from being contrary to human nature. It has never and never will exist.
Socialism is as close as you get and it has to be enforced.

Well, we're not in disagreement here... let me be more clear:

Communism is the utopian end-state of the socialist ideal. Socialism cannot properly function because it cannot calculate market prices, which is necessary for resources to be effectively allocated.

In other words socialism can't work because it's against human nature, and communism is the idealized end-state of socialism.

[Brett85]

There's a reason for that, you know. First, I'm not sure how one thinks that by actively participating in, and thereby lending legitimacy to something they will also somehow be discouraging its growth. That's the logical problem. The other problem is empirical, and historical. In practice, an effectively smaller State tends to mean a relatively freer market, which thus leads to greater wealth creation, a decline in poverty, and generally broader prosperity across the board. Unfortunately what follows is that the State recognizes a larger, deeper pool of taxable income and wealth which can be seized and used to expand. This expansion typically results in domestic welfare programs, among other things, which thus leads to the creation of additional bureaucracy. After that expansion takes place, it is virtually irreversible, and the resulting bureaucracies which were originally created to supposedly be a temporary solution to era-specific problems never goes away. Robert Higgs has described this whole process as the 'ratchet effect'. It is cyclical, and perpetual.

Delaying the State's growth is not only an entirely unproductive (if not counterproductive) goal, it's an entirely selfish one. All you're effectively doing is passing the burden along another generation, and saddling them with additional debt, and a larger State. All the while you're continuing to perpetuate the fantasy that within the State apparatus lies the answer to attaining your liberty, and putting a stop to the inherent, destructive, brutal nature of the State. In the long term, it doesn't matter who you put in the oval office. A peaceful society with true liberty isn't going to be easy, or quick. It's a generational battle, and it will be achieved by rejection; it's not an electoral battle achieved by participation. But if you are content with settling for table scraps, then that's fine. But don't expect everyone else to roll over so easily.

Well, going by your own argument, if the government were to ever be abolished, what would stop a group of people from getting together and creating a government again? It's possible that under that scenario, you would end up with a government that's much worse than what we have now. That's why many Communists have historically called themselves "anarchists," because they believe in abolishing the current government and replacing it with a Communistic system.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think trying to create a government that resembles that of Grover Cleveland is "Settling for table scraps."

There's a difference between getting almost everything you want, and only getting a little of what you want.

There's a reason why I won't vote for anyone less libertarian than Mike Lee, there's only so much I'm willing to compromise.

[Cabal]

Well, going by your own argument, if the government were to ever be abolished, what would stop a group of people from getting together and creating a government again? It's possible that under that scenario, you would end up with a government that's much worse than what we have now. That's why many Communists have historically called themselves "anarchists," because they believe in abolishing the current government and replacing it with a Communistic system.

My concern is with seeing the slaves freed. I'm not really worried about how farmers will tend their crops without them.

[Bastiat's The Law]

No,, Communism suffers from being contrary to human nature. It has never and never will exist.
Socialism is as close as you get and it has to be enforced.

I think Anarchism suffers from the same failing; namely being contrary to human nature.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I don't think trying to create a government that resembles that of Grover Cleveland is "Settling for table scraps."

There's a difference between getting almost everything you want, and only getting a little of what you want.

There's a reason why I won't vote for anyone less libertarian than Mike Lee, there's only so much I'm willing to compromise.

And the Mike Lees of the world help blaze a path for even more libertarian candidates in the future.

[fr33]

I think Anarchism suffers from the same failing; namely being contrary to human nature.

I disagree. It's frowned upon to offer up personal experience as evidence but...

I have my property and am willing to be left alone if they would let me. I've never met a person willing to give up their property, time, and wealth to others for communism. They always expect others to do so.

[Christian Liberty]

And the Mike Lees of the world help blaze a path for even more libertarian candidates in the future.

How?

[Bastiat's The Law]

Yes, but I don't accept that we would ever have the type of order that Tom Woods and others think we would have without a government. It just isn't realistic.
I agree and human history backs this up. Humans are tribal beings and social structure is a by-product of this. The 'might makes right' maxim would quickly rule the day. If there managed to be an anarchist utopia it would be an incredibly small and short-lived experiment, with it either getting crushed by a larger tribe or simply by the vary nature of anarchism not working very well when put into practice. Most of the anarchist communities in the 1960s failed within a matter of months.

[Bastiat's The Law]

How?
Lots of ways. It's kind of like softening up the enemy by launching a naval bombardment before your troops hit the beaches. Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and others are finally breaking through to the ignorant masses. Many people within the republican party are starting to think critically, perhaps for the first time, about everything. We're lucky to have them explain libertarian/conservative principals to enormous audiences in such an easy to understand manner. This will make elections for us easier in the future because when a liberty candidate gets on stage and starts speaking the audience won't view them like they're an alien from another planet. They will have heard this stuff before from Mike Lee, Paul, Cruz, Amash, Massie, etc all before. Plus, men follow those with courage and conviction. Our liberty candidates are all pretty inspiring and courageous fellows and they will continue to win others over to their side as has already been happening. It just takes time for things to snowball. We're basically trying to turn around 100 years of progressivism and propaganda. We have to get our people into political office so they have a bully-pulpit to espouse our ideas directly with the masses. And the masses are ripe for this message. We've already made great strides in the last 4-5 years, so if anything, its time to redouble our efforts. Every election cycle we have to get more Massie/Amash types up there.

[noneedtoaggress]

I think Anarchism suffers from the same failing; namely being contrary to human nature.

Government that is compatible with Natural Law is anarchist (stateless). Gustav de Molinari, Bastiat's publisher, is known as the godfather of anarcho-capitalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari) as he made the first real argument for it with his work "The Production of Security". In it he went on to pretty much explain why anarchism is, in fact, not contrary to human nature at all and is complementary to it. Bastiat called Molinari his "spiritual heir". (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastiat#Bastiat.27s_tomb)

[Bastiat's The Law]

Really?

Visit Ciudad Juárez Mexico sometime if you want a taste of what anarchy truly looks like.

[noneedtoaggress]

Visit Ciudad Juárez Mexico sometime if you want a taste of what anarchy truly looks like.

Hey we can do that too: "Visit North Korea sometime if you want a taste of what statism truly looks like."

[osan]

Pastor Chuck Baldwin -“We Are Not Anarchists”

Kalispell, MT-(NorthWest Liberty News) Pastor Chuck Baldwin is a controversial figure. He has been demonized by the left for many years, and has been used as cannon fodder by the SPLC for nearly as long. Opinions about Pastor Baldwin vary widely. Some think he’s a heroic “Black Robe “preacher, while others think that he’s an anti-government “whacko.” And through it all, Chuck Baldwin just keeps on preaching truth. In the clip below, which will NEVER be referenced by the likes of the SPLC, Pastor Baldwin covers the role of government, the meaning of liberty, and what the Bible says about anarchy. If you have never heard Chuck Baldwin speak, the short clip below offers you an excellent chance to do so. Learn more about Chuck Baldwin by visiting the Liberty Fellowship website (http://libertyfellowshipmt.com/).


I managed to get to 5:00 where he says government's role is limited - had to stop there. This guy seems to be all over the map. Some statements are OK and others are simply on Mars. For one thing, I do not give a damn what ANY "scripture" says when it conflicts with cold, hard reason. He was so on the money when he said that liberty was not license to do anything you want to anyone you want for any reason you want, but then immediately went into a wholly screwed up basis of why. Coming to the right conclusions based on the wrong reasoning doesn't help us in any useful measure.

It is clear he lacks an understanding of "anarchy", given not just what he said, but the derisive tone he used in reference there. It is clear he either interprets scripture incorrectly or the scripture itself is incorrect - perhaps and ironically both. He says "government" is given a clear and legitimate role BY GOD, which smells a whole lot like "God has commanded me to have first crack at every newly-wed virgin in the land before hubbies gets theirs". He can spout scripture until his nuts fall off; until God pops out from his hiding place and makes such a declaration directly to me, the faculties of reason and logic that I choose to believe were given me by presumably the same God tell me that this is pure bullshit. I am willing to be proven wrong, but only by the correct authority and Chucks does not appear to be it. He is also apparently not in possession of a nominally correct understanding of the difference between the phony baloney conceptual institution of government and the provably legitimate function of governance, which can be discharged ONLY by individual human beings and not by immaterial conceptions.

I even question the seemingly innocuous failure in his use of "can" in place of "may". This may seem trivial, but if you are purporting to speak for God, you had damned well better have all your ducks in a line and your act well squared away.

Or have I missed something essential?

[osan]

I was beside myself, listening to him.
You can't let the salesman get the foot into the door (for the start of this speech).
Yet, I found myself sympathizing with my old self as he spoke more. But, then after a while, I remembered what I had learned.
The place for government is self government. If you cannot govern yourself then there is no recourse but to subject to yourself to those who do not have your best interest at heart.

Thread winner.

Pony up, folks.

/thread

[Feeding the Abscess]

The Anti Federalists were not Anarchists either.

But today the Anti Federalists are also labeled Terrorists, as well as Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and Four Year Olds with their own Gardens (see thread in Health Freedom).

I suspect that at least a couple of them may have been, had they been around today and had access to those who came after them.

[Scrapmo]

The place for government is self government. If you cannot govern yourself then there is no recourse but to subject to yourself to those who do not have your best interest at heart.

This is acctually the problem I see with anarchy. The majority of people acctually want to be governed. But being goverened is not in and of itself enough to make them feel "secure". They would see those free-spirited liberty oriented folks who self-govern as a threat to the collective or not seen as acceptable "in good and decent society". Also living free would be a meet with supreme disdain as your existence would be a constant reminder of their own insecurities and inadequacies.

In response the governed would attempt to bring you into the fold. By persuasion if possible, by force if necessary, because the governed will not tolerate someone who is not being governed. They would delude themselves into believing they were helping you or protecting society or any contrived garbage they can muster except the truth, which is you frighten them and make them feel inferior, which in turn angers them. The governed will do all they can to make sure you share in thier bondage.

The only way to truly be free is to ensure you do not live around or rely on people, excepting for immediate family.

Most people want to be controlled.

[osan]

No it wasn't. At least not from God. Governments came from Man.

Well, let us see about this...



He gave warnings against having a king,, but allowed it when the people begged for one.

This appears to be utterly senseless. If what you claim is true, then unless every single last individual human being on the planet "begged" for a king, God is proven a monumental and catastrophic fuck-up. If everything that is said in these forums by Christians is true regarding God's architecture of free will, innate freedom, and the significance of the individual, then his having treated the entire population of X individuals as a monobloc entity either cannot be true or he screwed the pooch beyond all measure - thereby proving he is not perfect. Can't have it both ways, I am afraid. So the question here is where lays the flaw? Your assertion? That of God's architecture? The doctrine of God's infallibility? It has to be somewhere because these propositions are at loggerheads.


I am not.. I do not even believe that Anarchy can exist more than momentarily outside of philosophical imaginations.

Well now here you appear to be drowning in the wrong. By all indications based on anthropological study, human beings have lived mostly under conditions of anarchy. So-called "government" is a human artifact coincident with Empire that started with the very first cities. A city of even the most meager proportions is a MAJOR physical undertaking. Hell, a simple house is when the tools at hand are all powered by those very hands. I am in the process of excavating the crawl space under the house and putting in a deeper foundation and can tell you first hand that such work will kill you in time. That's just part of a house, and done with at least a few power tools. Building a CITY, presumably of stone or even just mud brick, is monumental work requiring hundreds or thousands of backs.

That so many backs could be persuaded to voluntarily participate in the erection of such edifices including the walls to keep the wild animals at bey is up for some debate. But even if it started out that way, we all know that violent force eventually supplanted any theretofore extant voluntary agreement to work. It is well known through the examination of tribal anarchistic societies that such force was rarely sustainable simply because those not accepting of the conditions simply voted with their feet - even if they had to slip away in the night. This is not as readily doable when thick walls and deep divisions of labor are all you know - even less so with bars on windows.



Less law =/= no law.

You appear to be implying that anarchy = no law, which is endlessly removed from truth.


Natural Law still exists, Spiritual Law still exists.

And these are the very bedrock of anarchism. Anarchy = !rulers && != !law

[osan]

I admit I don't know how to interpret the passage in question. Verse 3 just seems to be obviously false, rulers often reward evil and punish good. So I'm honestly not sure what Paul is trying to say there. Not knowing Greek doesn't exactly help me here either.


This speaks well of you because what you have quoted is utterly devoid of clear and definite meaning. Let us do a little informal semantic analysis.


Submission to the Authorities

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.

We begin with an undefined entity, "governing authorities". This is not good - thus far, NOTHING of worth has been asserted, only a spew of meaningless blather splooched on the wall.


For there is no authority except from God

This can be taken in at least two different ways - from as in "handed down" or as in "of". "Of" and "from" can be synonymous because "from" has at least two semantic senses. For example, in German the word "von" means "from" or "of" depending on how it is used. It can even mean both at the same time such as when used in a name, for instance: Baron Manfred von Richthofen means Manfred of Richtofen in the sense of being FROM the place called Richtofen.

Is the sentence referring to authority bestowed by God upon human kings or that of God himself? As written in the given English above, there is no way to know.


and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Once again we run into a semantically non-deterministic phrase as we have no idea to which authorities the assertion refers. More semantic bupkis.


2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.

Exact same ambiguity. Also - "what God has appointed" is ambiguous in that it is unclear whether it speaks to the generalized notion of authority given to mortal kings or specific tenets of authority appointed either to kings to enforce or just by God directly upon men. Thus far, the author, interpreter, or both merit a good whipping.


3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.

This too is ambiguous because observation of rulers clearly contradicts the assertion - but because a rigorous definition of "ruler" is not provided it is possible to interpret this to mean that tyrants are not, in fact, rulers - which is to say they hold no God-given authority. This latter would appear to make better sense to me but the presumption is a large one.



Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you r (http://www.esvbible.org/1P2.14/)will receive his approval,

Same problems as per above - nothing is defined and therefore nothing holds definite meaning.


4 for he is God's servant for your good.


This clarifies things - apparently the authority which heretofore was referred ambiguously is now resolved - still very poor writing and IMO inexcusable.


But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.


Here we also appear to be referring to authority as being dispensed by God to chosen men.


5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

This may be so, but it then raises the thorny question of God's apparent failure to protect us from the tyrant who, if we are to interpret what has come before this point to mean that a "ruler" is by definition "good", holds no authority. The other possibility is that "ruler" may be defined as good regardless of what he does or even that "ruler" ALWAYS does what God commands, in which case God is a sadistic, murdering pervert because we are all witness to the horrors that some men foist and heap upon others and they would apparently be God's reach around buddies. But if this is "good" in the sense of God's will, then why do we experience such a sense of horror, fear, sadness, outrage, and non-acceptance when we come to learn of some new atrocity committed by one against another? Is that good? If so, our understanding of how things work in this world is run pretty far off the rails.

None of this adds up, you see. Either the interpretations are shit, the scriptures are shit, our understandings of right and wrong are shit, or God is shit. Either way, something very fundamental is extremely loused up.


6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.

God commands the theft of tyrants? Seems a bit TOO convenient to the tyrant for my comfort. It does, in fact, smell strongly of the rank.


7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Neither nature of that owed, nor quantity is defined, implying these are left arbitrarily up to the ruler. More stink issuing from a semantically rotten sentence.


As you can see, language carries with it all manner of grave hazards for those lacking in ability or good habits in both the writing and reading.

[Matthew5]

I think Anarchism suffers from the same failing; namely being contrary to human nature.

But how much of human nature is "Nature vs. Nurture"? Maybe we're not fit for anarchism, but perhaps our grandchildren could be?

[osan]

I vehemently disagree. God instituted the family, not the state.

You write this, which is marginally sane - certainly very plausible, only to be followed by this:




The idea of free will is the FOUNDATION for government intervention.

Big assertion with zero evidence offered in support. I would like to see a properly reasoned explanation of how this is so, though if your past performances are to be used as the barometer I will have to conclude it will not be forthcoming.


If men's wills are free and able to be changed by something in this world, that leaves the door open for an earthly institution to control it.

This may be so, but what of it? If men's wills are NOT free and able to be changed by something in this world, that leaves men as nothing better than wooden posts, impervious to fact and incapable of correcting their errors. It reduces human beings to merely animated objects, like fancy wind-up dolls. What's the point there?


The doctrine of predestination, which says that no institution on this earth can change a man's will, only God can, is the FOUNDATION for a philosophy against interventionism.


As barking mad as this apparently looney logic reads, it occurs to me that this just may be a catastrophically failed attempt at a sentence structure put forward by you pursuant to a thought that makes sense but for which you simply could not get the words out right. If so, your brain REALLY lapsed in a big way here in terms of linguistic usage. Unfortunately, the hint in there is so subtle that I cannot quite get my nails into it to drag out what I am thinking you may have meant. Perhaps you could clarify, because if you meant what you wrote, then you're off the deep end.



Governmental slavery is a judgement on men for their sin.

So is AIDS. Didn't you know? Yeah, he's really pissed with all the *****s and is giving them AIDS for butt banging and rug munching each other. God HATES those guys.

[pcosmar]

But how much of human nature is "Nature vs. Nurture"? Maybe we're not fit for anarchism, but perhaps our grandchildren could be?
Are you suggesting some sort of Social controls? Social Engineering?

Socialists have been doing that for years.

[pcosmar]

And these are the very bedrock of anarchism. Anarchy = !rulers && != !law

And yet from the beginning there have been rulers.. It is in our nature.
From immediately after the flood. The first One World Government was born. A Man named Nimrod (who is still revered by those that wish to rule).

And even in nature of animals.. From the Alpha of the pack,, the biggest Bull in the herd or the Old Goose that leads the flock south.

This is why I do not believe that Anarchy will ever exist. Someone (some strong man) will rule either by consent or by force.

And though I am as anti-Authoritarian as any,, a limited government is the best way of keeping these Nimrods in check.

[Christian Liberty]

So is AIDS. Didn't you know? Yeah, he's really pissed with all the *****s and is giving them AIDS for butt banging and rug munching each other. God HATES those guys.





Be VERY careful making such a statement to Sola_Fide:p

As for the rest, I think he I understood his point. Basically, if man has free will, social engineering to try to "make the world a better place" starts to make sense, whereas if you recognize only God can change the hearts of the wicked, there's no good reason to use legal force against them.

There may be holes in that argument, but I think I understand it. Its irrelevant though, because free will is clearly unscriptural.

[Matthew5]

Are you suggesting some sort of Social controls? Social Engineering?

No, not at all.

What I'm saying is some of what we write off as human behavior is learned through parenting, environment, and peer interactions. The thug mentality that many fear will go unchecked in a voluntary society isn't necessarily a default attitude among children.

I'm just musing after BTL's statement.

[mczerone]

Visit Ciudad Juárez Mexico sometime if you want a taste of what anarchy truly looks like.

Where there's a govt that forbids competition to its services, but refuses to actually provide its services to the poor and unconnected?

Sorry, that's like saying that NYC is "anarchic" because there's only 1% of the population that has to deal with law enforcement everyday.

[Cabal]

Visit Ciudad Juárez Mexico sometime if you want a taste of what anarchy truly looks like.

So first you invoke some typical bullshit about human nature, which you don't bother to actually validate in any way. Then you go to reference the cartel brutality in Juarez, as if this isn't a direct product of the Mexican and U.S. government's 'War on drugs'.

[Cabal]

Anarchism has as much a chance of being a reality as True Communism. For either to exist is a utopian fantasy that would require a complete revolutionary change in the very nature of human beings. It'll never happen because no matter how philosophically attractive it is a literal impossibility.

Just Statism has as much a chance of being a reality as True Communism. For either to exist is a utopian fantasy that would require complete revolutionary change in the very nature of human beings. It'll never happen because no matter how philosophically attractive it is a literal impossibility.

[jmdrake]

I forgot what it was he said about free will that made me think he was an Arminian. Guess I was wrong.

Doesn't change the fact that every scripture he quoted during that 7 minute clip was out of context.

I haven't watched the clip. I have seen many a Calvinist take scriptures out of context though. That and add their own meanings that are nowhere to be found in the text and even disagree with how John Calvin viewed the text.

[noneedtoaggress]

And even in nature of animals.. From the Alpha of the pack,, the biggest Bull in the herd or the Old Goose that leads the flock south.

Actually the "Alpha" theory was derived from wolves in captivity, not in the wild. IIRC even the guy who came up with the Alpha wolf theory later rejected it. It became popular and turned into a pop-culture meme that's lasted longer than the theory itself. Wolves in the wild are actually much more family-oriented:


Since Schenkel’s time, scientists have realized that the story of how wolves form and maintain packs is different than originally thought. The real story is this: A male and female wolf find each other, court, mate, and soon have offspring. The parents affectionately guide the offspring, teach them necessarily life skills, and keep them safe. Those pups, at about a year of age, become older siblings to the next litter, and like human siblings, dominate the new pups—but there is no “fighting for rank.” The rank is obvious. The parents are still in charge, period. Eventually, the offspring will disperse and eventually form their own packs.

Does any of this sound familiar? Does the accurate information about wolf packs sound more like wild animals constantly having to fight for rank, suppressing each other’s behavior, and rolling each other on their backs to prove dominance? Or does it sound more like human family structure? In the late 1990s, after David Mech lived on Ellesmere Island with a pack of wild wolves, he wanted to correct the information that now pervades our consciousness about wolf behavior, especially the ever-prevalent concept of the “alpha.” He published an article in 1999 in the Canadian Journal of Zoology and another in 2000 in the Canadian Field Naturalist, which discussed true pack structure. According to Mech, “The issue is not merely one of semantics or political correctness. It is one of biological correctness such that the term we use for breeding wolves accurately captures the biological and social role of the animals rather than perpetuate a faulty view.”

http://www.dogstardaily.com/blogs/man-who-cried-alpha

Bird flocking is an example of decentralized Spontaneous Organization. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization#Self-organization_in_biology)


Energy conservation and visual assurance.

Why do geese fly in a V? Because it would be too hard to fly in an S! Just kidding. Scientists have determined that the V-shaped formation that geese use when migrating serves two important purposes:

First, it conserves their energy. Each bird flies slightly above the bird in front of him, resulting in a reduction of wind resistance. The birds take turns being in the front, falling back when they get tired. In this way, the geese can fly for a long time before they must stop for rest. The authors of a 2001 Nature article stated that pelicans that fly alone beat their wings more frequently and have higher heart rates than those that fly in formation. It follows that birds that fly in formation glide more often and reduce energy expenditure (Weimerskirch, 2001).

The second benefit to the V formation is that it is easy to keep track of every bird in the group. Flying in formation may assist with the communication and coordination within the group. Fighter pilots often use this formation for the same reason.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/geese.html


This is why I do not believe that Anarchy will ever exist. Someone (some strong man) will rule either by consent or by force.

There are still rules in anarchism, and there can be "leaders" in different forms. They're just not allowed to carve out a special law that legalizes their aggression. They have to abide by the same Natural Laws that everyone else does. When you walk into someones house and agree to abide by their rules that's a form of stateless governance.


And though I am as anti-Authoritarian as any,, a limited government is the best way of keeping these Nimrods in check.

But rather than keeping them in check it centralizes power into a monopoly and enables Nimrods to abuse that power.

[pcosmar]

But rather than keeping them in check it centralizes power into a monopoly and enables Nimrods to abuse that power.

No,, actually it is the laziness on the part of "We the People" that allows them to abuse power.

If abuse of power was met with a bullet as was intended,, this abuse would not have gotten to the point it is.

It was tolerated and excused. That is a mistake of the people,, not of the limits.
Had the limits been enforced,,they would not be abused,, not for long and not more than once.

[noneedtoaggress]

No,, actually it is the laziness on the part of "We the People" that allows them to abuse power.

If abuse of power was met with a bullet as was intended,, this abuse would not have gotten to the point it is.

It was tolerated and excused. That is a mistake of the people,, not of the limits.
Had the limits been enforced,,they would not be abused,, not for long and not more than once.

I know where you're coming from. The formula for anarchism to succeed is exactly the same, the only difference is where the "tolerance" bar lies. Anarchism simply puts governing institutions up to a higher standard with less tolerance for abuse of power.

Maybe it's not so simple as people being lazy (though that's certainly a contributing factor), but when they allow power to be centralized into a single organization the cards get stacked against them. Especially if they perceive it, not as an enemy, but the foundation of a good quality of life. Double that when that institution starts to "educate" it's subjects by indoctrinating them with ideas about how much they need it and how beneficial it is to their lives.